<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Advogato blog for lev</title>
    <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/</link>
    <description>Advogato blog for lev</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <generator>mod_virgule</generator>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:24:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:29:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>19 Jun 2002</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=5</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=5</guid>
      <description>&lt;a href="http://www.advogato.org/person/synctext/" &gt;synctext&lt;/a&gt;: 

&lt;p&gt; &lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;it's pointless to complaint about the &lt;a
href="http://advogato.org/person/"&gt;people&lt;/a&gt; page and sit
there doing nothing. it's better to start thinking how it
should be done, and perhaps start implementing if
possible.

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;at the moment, i'm think it would be very nice to replace
it with a search box that does &lt;i&gt;regexp&lt;/i&gt; searches on the
usernames and return only the matched entries (of course).

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;btw, i guess very few people actually make use of the
'people' page.

&lt;p&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;a href="http://www.advogato.org/person/salmoni/" &gt;salmoni&lt;/a&gt;: happy( birthday &amp;amp;&amp;amp; mirror_seeking
);</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:31:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>15 Jun 2002</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=4</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=4</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.advogato.org/person/raph/" &gt;raph&lt;/a&gt;: some people just won't understand
that we're tolerating him. he might have shown some
interests, but his attitude doesn't fit in as part of the
open source community. a 'troll undercover'?</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:14:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>15 Jun 2002</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=3</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=3</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;trusted metric&lt;/b&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;i&gt;"no matter how strong is the encryption, it's useless if
one
keeps the passphrase under his keyboard..."&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;i do have faith in the trust metric system, but we still
have to do our part to make it works. IMHO, we should at
least, have a look at one's contributions to the open source
community before granting certs. this will greatly reduce
the chance of creating a 'master troll' eventually, since
&lt;a href="http://www.advogato.org/person/raph/" &gt;raph&lt;/a&gt; has made it so hard for trolls to
'gain level' by mass certifying each other.

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;unsorted&lt;/b&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;i saw someone certified &lt;a href="http://www.advogato.org/person/alan/" &gt;alan&lt;/a&gt; as
apprentice! oh my, alan cox is an 'apprentice', then i
should be a 'sub-observer'. i'm sure that alan don't mind
about that, but it clearly illustrated how little does that
guy know about the open source community.

</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:55:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>6 Jun 2002</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=2</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=2</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Open Source Development&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The way of which most Open Source software evolve is
rather strange, to those outside the community. But it does
make sense, and is working well...

&lt;p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;It all begin with a programmer "scratching his personal
itch". An Open Source programmer usually writes software to
address his own needs, if not for fun. Because of his love
for the software, and the fact that he himself will be using
it, the programmer puts in extra effort in developing the
software. Of course, the software is then shared, usually
under the terms of an open source license.

&lt;p&gt;  &lt;p&gt;Another programmer discovers the software, and find that
there are something missing, from his point of view.
Therefore, he implement the parts he needs, and send his
patches back to the original author to be included in the
next release. Collaboration among the programmers is done
over the Internet, usually via email. Such collaboration
effort is made possible by the mutual trust within the
community. This cycle repeats continously until...

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;When the software gain a massive following. There will be
a small team of zealots working on the software like mad,
while the rest doing their parts by submitting patches,
reporting bugs, etc. At this point, the software should be
stable enough for production use, but the development
doesn't end here. As time goes by, it improves in all
directions, tho' at a slower pace, for it always has the
great Open Source people behind it.

</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:01:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>5 Apr 2002</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=1</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=1</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Positively Diluted&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In the elder days, Open Source is the way of computing.
Back then, the right of sharing needed no explicit grants.
The good old days. Things got a bit complicated when the
mass got into the picture. They started complaining that our
software isn't user friendly. They've forgotten, if they
knew it in the first place, that those software were never
supposed to be used by them. 

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;However, the Open Source people are very kind indeed. "If
the average users want to use our software, why not we make
it easier to use for the mass? why don't we promote the use
of our software to benefit more people?". Many Open Source
people had voluntarily take up the responsibility of making
better software for the mass. Thereafter, the Open Source
culture was diluted, positively for the better. 

</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:06:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>25 Mar 2002</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=0</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/lev/diary.html?start=0</guid>
      <description>&lt;em&gt;Open Source, The Pure Form&lt;/em&gt;

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Open Source people write software to solve their
problems. We share the software becoz we feel that it's
really a very bad thing if everybody has to write his own
version of software to solve a same problem. We share the
source codes becoz we know that nobody produces perfect
codes, distributing the source codes give the others (and
ourselves) a chance to improve it. This way, we'll all
eventually get better software.

&lt;p&gt; &lt;p&gt;When the software we wrote solved our problems, we're
already happy enough. We've got our problems solved and we
had fun while writing it. Of course, it feels better if
somebody else find it useful and actually use it. If someone
is kind enough to help us to improve our software, we'll be
even happier. Do we really care if there's anyone out there
using our software? I doubt that, tho' it's kind of
motivation if we know that there are.

</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
